What to say and what to do: the determinants of corporate hypocrisy and its negative consequences for the customer–brand relationship

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to empirically examine the determinants of corporate hypocrisy and to investigate the potential negative impact on the consumer–brand relationship, specifically on trust, switch and resilience intentions. Design/methodology/approach A 2 (mission: no and yes) × 3 (sustainability activities: perfect, imperfect and no duty) experiment was developed. A total of 548 US consumers were randomly assigned to one of six case conditions and asked to respond to an online survey. The responses were analyzed by both two-way analysis of variance and PROCESS. Findings The results showed that respondents who saw clear sustainability goals in the companies’ mission statements had lower levels of corporate hypocrisy than those who did not, and when the mission statements and activities related to corporate sustainability were congruent, the respondents were less likely to elicit corporate hypocrisy than when they were not. Also, consumers showed lower levels of trust when corporate hypocrisy was present, which negatively impacted their switch and resilience intentions. Originality/value This study provided empirical evidence demonstrating how and to what extent corporate hypocrisy is formed by varying sustainability goals and activities. These findings urge brand managers to recognize the ripple effect created by a mismatch between their stated sustainability goals and their activities. Also, these findings could provide apparel management with guidelines for formulating and communicating companies’ sustainability goals and activities.

The buffering effect of continuous corporate social responsibilities engagement on negative consumer responses toward brand crises

“…Conversely, if there is a discrepancy between companies' agreements and actions, consumers may develop skepticism or/and corporate hypocrisy toward firms (Jung et al, 2021; Moreno & Kang, 2020; Wagner et al, 2009). This is because individuals view the hypocritical features of others as corresponding to their discrete characters, and thus develop a feeling of mistrust (Wagner et al, 2009).…”

“…This study deemed that these effects are consequences of trust and consumers' resilience toward a firm's negative information. Although many studies have examined the role of consumers' trust and forgiveness intentions in sustaining a firm's performance (Jung et al, 2021; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013), they have rarely examined how these factors influences their evaluations toward firms' actual incidents. Therefore, this study posited that fashion firms' consistent CSR practices can build trust and reduce negative consequences when unexpected and unintended crises occur.…”

Benefit appeals and perceived corporate hypocrisy: implications for the CSR performance of fast fashion brands

“…Furthermore, Wagner et al (2009) argue that consumers were likely to judge products based on their corporate hypocrisy perceptions. That is, if consumers are skeptical of a brand's true intentions, they might think the brand behaves hypocritically and avoid approaching the brand any more (Guèvremont, 2019, Jung et al, 2020. They would thus refuse to purchase its products in reaction to the brand's moral violations, which is evidenced in Grégoire et al's (2009) research.…”

Sustainability through the lens of the professional adviser: the case for brand trust

“…The literature has identified multiple attributions that individuals may assign to brands engaging in CSR programs. Motivations that are perceived as opportunistic or exploitative are consistently documented to be negatively received by individuals (Armstrong Soule and Reich, 2015; Ellen et al , 2006; Jung et al , 2021; Vlachos et al , 2009). The more compelling question is whether professionals assign strategic and/or altruistic motivations to brands engaged in sustainability.…”